My Bike Has Been Leader 725 with hed wheel

^I just assumed the OP was a racist making fun out of ppl speaking Engrish and didn't want this to derail in to another Guardian thread.

can anyone still see the gumtree add?

no resolution yet?

^^ no but there's a nice girls 6 speed for £30!

i think you are deliberatly misunderstanding my posts but for the benefit of the less astute members of the forum who will no doubt further enrage themselves thanks to your posts i'll try and better explain what i have said.

i can imagine three possible responses to the events stated in the thread. the first might be to fully accept the truth of what is being suggested, namely that someone known to the op, or at least who themself knows of the op, is posing as the thief for some unknown reason, or perhaps that the thief themself is involved in a strange post-theft stalking exercise. the second response might be to think that the facts as given seem so odd that another explanation might be more likely, whatever this might be. the third reponse might be to claim that the op is deliberatly being untruthful.

i would place myself in the second catagory. i am neither 100% credulous, nor 100% accusatory. Since my scepticism allows for the possibility of another explanation, i would first look to the op (who else is there to look towards?) for this.

So, because you find the story a little incredible you are open to the possiblity that the op is being a bit crook.
In my experience truth is usually much stranger than fiction.
And as I don't know the OP I will do the decent thing and take his story at face value rather then hint at dishonesty with absolutly no evidence.

I am sure I am on the wrong side of this debate

You lot were all meant to side with Carson once I had made my position clear

I enjoy the argument too much, I think Carson is utterly wrong for his insinuation but will now support him for popcorn value

The above is all lies

But which bit?

none of this is credible frankly. i suspect the op is stringing us along.

no, because your's suggested that i think the op is involved, which of course i dont as there is nothing to suggest that he is, or indeed any reason why he shouldn't be presumed not to be. what i am saying is that given the oddness of the facts as stated, i wouldn't exclude the possibility. that is not at all the same as accusing him.

If you say he is stringing us along that doesn't really fit with you saying there is nothing to suggest he is involved. You are welcome to your opinion and you have the right to post it; that doesn't make it a sensible or worthwhile thing to do. Not saying anything is always an option. Unless you think that by speaking up you will help someone, somewhere, in some way and in this case it's hard to figure out who that someone might be.
I would guess Hugo has it right; someone who knows, or knows of, Johnny is just being a prick.

FYI you can see his nob if you walk under the cross.

If you say he is stringing us along that doesn't really fit with you saying there is nothing to suggest he is involved.

granted, i did put it more forcefully first (before i thought i would have to defend it quite so vigourously), but that doesnt mean my comments dont fit together. if you are prepared to entertain some doubts as to the credibility of what is being presented then you have to entertain doubts as to the op's position as i cant see how to exclude the possibility of a stalking thief or a malicious imposter without inculpating the op somehow. i'm not then saying that i suspect the op of anything in the first instance, rather that he falls under supicion by process of exclusion.

You are welcome to your opinion and you have the right to post it; that doesn't make it a sensible or worthwhile thing to do. Not saying anything is always an option. Unless you think that by speaking up you will help someone, somewhere, in some way and in this case it's hard to figure out who that someone might be.

that seems like a rather prim way of saying that if i dont have anything nice to say then i shouldn't say anything at all. well, thats fair enough i suppose. but i dont think i was unreasonable or insulting (to the op at least) - to my mind, so long as a discussion is conducted civily there is no reason contributions should be restricted to what is sensible, worthwhile or with the aim of helping someone. i only registered here last year so perhaps i got the wrong impression of how things are discussed here. in any event it will seem now that i am on a mission to convict the op of skullduggery which is not at all the case. i was simply stating that the oddness of the events as occured raised supicion in my mind (the varacity of my later posts should be taken in defence of my position rather than as an attack on the op).

Will is not a mummy.....well, yet anyways

this thread has got a little crazy.

carson Im a straight guy I wouldn't lie about the loss of my bike or the facts surrounding what's gone on

So I'm confused by all this.

So it was nicked, but by a stranger, a friend, or someone who knows of Johnny?

And the message was from the person who has the bike, or just someone taking the piss?

And was the gumtree advert from the person who nicked it, who again just someone taking the piss?

johnny as an occasional bender does that make me a liar?

homophobe

(just joking, all joylords are liars)

ffs: a summary for those who still point at the moon:

the bike was nicked (opoprtunistically)
fitz posted "my bike's been nicked"
someone, probably a "friend" or a "wanker", nicked the images, posted a fake gumtree and is having fitz on that he can get his bike back.
in the meantime, a couple of desk jockeys with nothing better to do all day are arguing about how "iffy" this is.

Again, Carson bullet-point-style please!

Some of us are from the MTV generation and find it really hard to follow your agrument on a computer (or worse an iphone) when you write like that.

htbry?

As for Johnny-thefalsifier-Fitz - if you didn't post the bumtree ad, why was it written by someone calling themselves Johny? eh?

I smell a rat.

ffs: a summary for those who still point at the moon:

the bike was nicked (opoprtunistically)
fitz posted "my bike's been nicked"
someone, probably a "friend" or a "wanker", nicked the images, posted a fake gumtree and is having fitz on that he can get his bike back.
in the meantime, a couple of desk jockeys with nothing better to do all day are arguing about how "iffy" this is.

So what you sayin?

ffs: a summary for those who still point at the moon:

the bike was nicked (opoprtunistically)
fitz posted "my bike's been nicked"
someone, probably a "friend" or a "wanker", nicked the images, posted a fake gumtree and is having fitz on that he can get his bike back.
in the meantime, a couple of desk jockeys with nothing better to do all day are arguing about how "iffy" this is.

this is exactly as i see it

i'm sure that sounded good in your head but if you think about it thats a load of pompous nonsense. you don't know me and, as you put it, i havn't earned your trust, but you would nonetheless take it at face value if i told you that i had succesfully performed a brain transplant without any surgical knowledge or experience? no, of course you woudln't. you would exercise some degree of common sense (assuming you have any) and a heathly dose of scepticism.

accepting that the bike was stolen in the first place, it seems to me incredible that someone known to the bike's true owner would pose as the thief offering the bike for sale, going so far as to arrange a rendez-vous with its owner (the "imposter" must have known it was the bike's owner he was agreeing to meet as if he never stole the bike in the first place why on earth would he arrange to meet a random buyer?) before sending him an email that sounds like something straight out of a gothic thriller.

I know enough to spot a fucking cunt when i see one

i'm so angry i let a fucking typo slip through.